SynthesisBMC palliative care2026
Effects of online advance care planning (ACP) decision aid programmes on adults with cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC palliative care, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAdvance care planning (ACP) is important in cancer care, but discussions are often delayed or inconsistently implemented. Online ACP decision aid programmes may support ACP participation, although their effects in adults with cancer remain unclear.
methodsA systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and supplementary sources was conducted from inception to 10 March 2026. Quantitative studies evaluating online ACP decision aid programmes for adults with cancer were included. Risk of bias was assessed using appropriate tools according to study design. Meta-analyses were performed using fixed- or random-effects models.
resultsTwelve studies met the eligibility criteria, including 10 randomised controlled trials, 1 pre-post study, and 1 single-arm quantitative evaluation study. Most studies were conducted in the USA. Pooled evidence showed that online ACP decision aid programmes significantly improved ACP documentation (OR = 2.06, 95% CI 1.29 to 3.27, p = 0.002) and ACP engagement (MD = 0.28, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.40, p < 0.0001). No statistically significant effects were found for AD completion (OR = 1.37, 95% CI 0.54 to 3.45, p = 0.50), satisfaction (MD = 0.15, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.55, p = 0.47), decisional conflict (MD=-0.72, 95% CI -5.87 to 4.43, p = 0.78), or anxiety (MD=-0.76, 95% CI -1.67 to 0.16, p = 0.11). Sensitivity analyses suggested that the findings for ACP documentation and ACP engagement were relatively robust, whereas the results for satisfaction and anxiety were less stable.
conclusionsOnline ACP decision aid programmes may support ACP in adults with cancer, particularly by improving ACP engagement and ACP documentation. However, evidence for benefits beyond ACP process outcomes remains limited or inconsistent. Further rigorous studies are needed to identify effective programme features and implementation strategies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.